ORGANIZATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT ...The importance of preexisting organizations for...

23

ORGANIZATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT MOBILIZATION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOUR RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS* Charles Kurzman† When do nonactivist organizations become committed to social movement goals? Building

on critiques of the "iron law of oligarchy," this article develops and tests the concept of organizational opportunity, analogous to political opportunity. It divides the concept along two dimensions, the attitudes and authority of organizational leaders. The article examines organizational opportunity in four religious organizations and the social movements that challenged their political quiescence: the civil rights movement in the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.; Liberation Theology in the Latin American Roman Catholic Church; the Iranian revolutionary movement in the Shi`i Muslim ruhaniyat; and prodemocracy activism in the Burmese Buddhist sangha. Activist mobilization of these organizations since the 1950s and 1960s appears to be strongly related to variation in organizational opportunity.

The importance of preexisting organizations for social movement mobilization has been one of the central premises of social movement theory for the past quarter century. Earlier, "breakdown" theories held that social organization was a conservative force, and that only individuals who have broken free or been cast loose from social bonds undertake protest activity. The newer, "solidarity" theories hold, by contrast, that social movement activism grows out of preexisting organization, which provides the setting, the solidarity, and the resources for sustained protest activity (Tilly, Tilly, and Tilly 1975: 4-8). I wish to examine how preexisting organizations become "cooptable" for social movement purposes (Freeman 1973: 794; McCarthy and Wolfson 1992). Social movement theory often explains the transformation of politically quiescent organizations into social movement resources by factors external to the organization, the most influential approach being the concept of "political opportunity" (McAdam 1982; Tarrow 1994). The concept of political opportunity focuses attention on the relationship between movement organizations and the state, and argues that changes in this relationship determine when organizations mobilize. In this article, however, I attempt to "control" for external factors through case selection in order to focus on factors internal to the organization. I propose to treat formal organizations as analogous in meaningful ways to the polity at large. This is hardly a novel _________________________________ * I thank Robert Adelman and Jennifer Rothchild for research assistance and Deborah Barrett, Bob Friedland, Ralph LaRossa, John D. McCarthy, Christian Smith, Charles Tilly, and the Mobilization reviewers for their helpful comments. † Charles Kurzman is Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210. © Mobilization: An International Journal, 1998, 3(1): 23-49

Mobilization 24

hardly a novel approach. Robert Michels's ([1915] 1962) famous study of the German Social Democratic Party began from the same premise and treated democracy within the organization and democracy within the polity as entirely comparable. Indeed, this is the basis for his ironic observation that political democracy may well depend upon organizational oligarchy. Political democracy in the modern age requires collective representation that is highly trained, functionally specialized, and stable over time; yet these characteristics create a leadership cadre that is oligarchic in its control of the organization. Furthermore, Michels argues, organizational leaders—even leaders of organizations seeking revolutionary change—develop styles of life and a taste for power that push the organization away from social movement goals. If the "iron law of oligarchy" operates in a revolutionary organization, how much more conservative must be the leaders of non-social movement organizations? Although he does not discuss non-movement organizations at length, Michels's argument implies that they never turn from quiescence to activism. And yet they sometimes do. A generation of "solidarity" studies of social movements has raised two sets of objections to Michels's "iron law" (Jenkins 1977: 569-70). First is an attitudinal objection: Does oligarchy mean conservatism? Students of social movements have noted various counter-examples in which non-social movement organizations were mobilized for social movement purposes by organizational leaders. Rather than the conservative force predicted by Michels, these leaders were more supportive of social change than their followers (Jenkins 1977; Rudwick and Meier 1972; Wood 1981). One movement theorist, building on his earlier work on "bloc recruitment" (Oberschall 1973), argues that this form of organizational mobilization is typical: Movements for the most part do not start from scratch, but grow out of

and federate an already existing set of groups and associations that have leaders, members. . . . If they do not already occupy prominent positions in some of these groups and associations, the originators of a new movement will reach out to those who do and try to win them over to their cause. These group and association leaders, if won over, will in turn bring in some of their rank and file members and allocate association resources to the goals and purposes which the social movement is pursuing. (Oberschall 1993: 24)

In more theoretical terms, one of the pioneering works in the solidarity perspective hypothesizes that collective action is a function of (a) the extent of a group's shared interests, (b) "the intensity of its organization (the extent of common identity and unifying structure among its members)," and (c) "the amount of resources under its collective control" (Tilly 1978: 84). Contrary to Michels's "iron law", collective control and unifying structure—elements of oligarchization—are deemed favorable for social movement activism. Second is an authority objection: Is oligarchy ever-increasing? Again, there are counter-examples of organizations in which oligarchy was staved off (Gerlach and Hine 1970; Lipset, Trow, and Coleman 1956; Rothschild-Whitt 1976), or even reversed (Ammerman 1990; Davis and Thompson 1994; Nyden 1985; Zald and Ash 1966). Two of the case studies below offer further instances. Hirschman's (1970) concept of "voice" and Zald and Berger's (1978) concept of "social movements in organizations" capture the notion that oligarchy may sometimes be successfully contested. Not only may leaders conflict with one another, but they are vulnerable to grass-roots movements among

Organizational Opportunity and Social Movements

25

members members who may mobilize resources within the organization just as the organization mobilizes its resources for action in external arenas (Chaves 1993b; Liebman, Sutton, and Wuthnow 1988).1 This objection to Michels is also at the core of "new social movement" theory. One of the features that allegedly characterizes contemporary movements is their self-conscious attempt to avoid or reduce oligarchization. Among left-libertarian political parties in Western Europe, according to one study, "a conspiratorial interpretation of Michels's theory of oligarchy is popular as the party's folk wisdom and colors the militants' zeal to prevent the emergence of bureaucratic organization and centralized authority" (Kitschelt 1990: 194). Similarly, numerous movements have emerged to "democratize" already oligarchic organizations: unions, voluntary associations, churches, even (as in parts of Eastern Europe after 1990) prodemocracy movements.2 These two objections to Michels's "iron law" run in somewhat contrary directions. The attitudinal objection suggests that organizations become committed to social movement goals through their leaders' activism; the authority objection attributes this shift to the activism of rank-and-file members. Since examples exist for both forms of organizational mobilization, we need an overarching explanatory framework that can account for both. The concept of organizational opportunity provides this framework. ORGANIZATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Doug McAdam (1996: 26-29) has recently attempted to improve the reliability of the concept of political opportunity by specifying four operationalizable dimensions of the concept: (1) relative openness of the institutionalized political system; (2) instability of elite alignments; (3) presence of elite allies; and (4) the state's reduced capacity or propensity for repression. The present definition of organizational opportunity rearranges these factors into two dimensions drawn from the critiques of the "iron law of oligarchy," an attitudinal dimension and an authority dimension. Organizational opportunity may be said to exist where: (1) the attitudes of the organizational leadership become less hostile or more favorable to social movement goals (as indicated by elite allies or reduced propensity for repression); or (2) the organizational leadership is less able to sanction members who pursue social movement goals (as indicated by institutional openness, instability of elite alignments, or reduced capacity for repression). As the presence of these elements cannot be determined through quantitative measurement, they will be interpreted via focused historical narratives that, in keeping with recent work in social movement theory, take account of both post-hoc academic observation and the contemporary perceptions of social movement activists (Kurzman 1996). This study's hypothesis is that organizational opportunity is an important factor in understanding both the nature and extent of organizational mobilization. The two dimensions of organizational opportunity are not related symmetrically. Leaders' declining power to expel activists (the authority dimension) may or may not cause the leaders to adopt a more sympathetic attitude towards them (the attitudinal dimension). There are instances when this is so, for example in the Iranian ruhanyat in 1 Zald and his collaborators use the term "mass movements" to describe these grass-roots challenges to organizational authority (Zald and Berger 1978; Zald and McCarthy 1987). The term is unfortunate because it connotes movements of isolated individuals (Kornhauser 1959), an image that does not match Zald's overarching argument that social movements grow out of solidary groups. 2 The debate sparked by Piven and Cloward (1977) over the relative effectiveness of hierarchical and non-hierarchical protest movements is a separate issue. In this study, I am concerned only with organization-based movements, and do not enter the Piven-Cloward debate by comparing them with non-hierarchical movements.

Mobilization 26

the 1970s discussed later in this paper. But there are also cases when leaders have responded to declining power by digging in their heels; the Burmese sangha, analyzed below, may be an example of this. On the other hand, greater sympathy on the part of leaders (the attitudinal dimension) almost certainly makes it difficult for the organization to expel activists (the authority dimension). This appears to have been the case with Catholic liberation theologians in the 1960s and 1970s. The crux of organizational opportunity—as for political opportunity—is that favorable shifts in leaders' attitude and authority, singly or in combination, are perceived as consistent and reinforcing, thus creating opportunities for activists to mobilize the organization for social movement purposes. Both dimensions are potential sites of organizational conflict. Far from being an unexamined "black box," or a binary combination of leaders and followers, the organization is viewed as a complex arena of contested control. Sectors within the organization may challenge the very nature of the organization, its structure, and purposes. Either from positions of power, middle ranks, or the grass-roots, activists may seek to change the organization in basic ways. However, the activists do not always succeed. One of the contributions of the political-opportunity model is its recognition that power is not evenly distributed within the polity. In periods of social quiescence, this uneven distribution is stable; only those seeking martyrdom (literal or figurative) consider challenging authority. But when potential activists perceive a favorable shift in the distribution of power, they may act to take advantage. The outcome then depends on the changing power relations among leaders, challengers, and third parties. Challengers succeed when they are able to mobilize more resources than their opponents. Reductions in the leaders' ability or willingness to counter the challenge lower the threshold of success. These considerations lead the concept of organizational opportunity, and social movement theory, back into the sociology of organizations. For two decades, the study of social movements has drawn extensively on the sociology of organizations, but the influence has not been reciprocal, despite calls for attention to "social movements within organizations" (Zald and Berger 1978; Davis and Thompson 1994). The concept of organizational opportunity offers a social movement tool for organizational research, and permits social movement analysis to contribute to the study of power in organizations (Allen and Porter 1983; Fairholm 1993; Hardy 1995; Hardy and Clegg 1996; Hickson, Hinings, Schneck, and Pennings 1971; Hinings, Hickson, Pennings, and Schneck 1974; Mintzberg 1983; Pfeffer 1981; Zald 1970). Like Michels's "iron law of oligarchy," the concept of organizational opportunity draws an explicit analogy between the nature of organizations and the nature of the polity (see also Long 1962; C. Smith 1991; Tushman [1977] 1983; Zald 1990; Zald and Berger 1978). Unlike Michels's work, however, the present approach views both organization and polity as potentially fluid and makes no unidirectional argument about the authority and attitudinal dimensions of oligarchy. In addition, I would like to offer several caveats to the analogy between organizational opportunity and political opportunities. Organizations are unlike polities in at least three ways: First, organizations are far more varied in organizational form than nation-states; second, organizations lack mutual exclusiveness in terms of membership; third, the coercive apparatus available to nation-states is far greater than that available to most organizations. As a result of these differences, the organizational-opportunity model needs to recognize that (1) the model of parliamentary democracy, which has attracted most attention in the political-opportunity literature, may not be the most appropriate default model for organizational opportunity; (2) organizational authority is, at its strongest, somewhat weaker than the authority of most states; and (3) shifts in the distribution of


27

power within the organization are often linked to shifts outside of the organization. These caveats may help in the medium term to establish organizational opportunity as a concept in its own right, and not simply a derivative application of political opportunity. ORGANIZATIONAL MOBILIZATION The explanandum for this study is organizational mobilization, defined here as the application of organizational resources—physical, financial, and human—to social movement activities. Mobilization may vary in at least three ways. The first variation is the raw percentage of organizational resources devoted to social movement purposes. In few cases, I imagine, will this proportion exceed one half. Even in a period of revolution, the routine functioning of the organization demands the lion's share of resources. The second variation is which resources become committed to social movement activities: the central office or branches, human resources or financial resources, and so on. The third variation involves the relationships among members, to what extent they tolerate differences of opinion as to social movement activism. It is possible, for instance, to have a middle-level mobilization in terms of the percent of resources being devoted to social movement purposes, but a low level of tolerance that leads the activists to be ejected from the organization. However, the nature of the cases in this study precludes detailed measurement of these three axes. Instead, the study proceeds through a set of ideal types that lumps all three axes together: A fully mobilized organization applies a large portion of its resources to such activities, with either support or acquiescence throughout the organization. A partially mobilized organization applies some of its resources, with important sectors of the organization opposed to these activities. A non-mobilized organization applies few of its resources, with the sectors favoring mobilization forced to choose between activism or continued membership in the organization. Future research using more accessible cases may allow us to design more sophisticated measures of organizational mobilization. CASE SELECTION This article examines four case studies of preexisting religious organizations that appear to be highly conducive to protest activity, according to leading criteria of social movement theory, but vary in the extent of organizational opportunity: African-American Baptist Christianity, Latin-American Catholic Christianity, Iranian Shi`i Islam, and Burmese Theravada Buddhism. Religious organizations are particularly good cases because they have been frequently identified in recent years as likely preexisting sources for social movements (Smith 1996; Yarnold 1991; Zald and McCarthy 1987). Contrary to Karl Marx's assessment of religion as "the opium of the people" (McClellan 1987: 13), religions are often "ambivalent [towards the status quo] and in fact have both encouraged as well as discouraged revolt" (Lewy 1974: 562; Billings 1990). Also, the structures of religious organizations have been extensively studied, especially regarding the issue of centralized authority—although much of the literature focuses on North American Protestantism (see Ammerman 1990; Chaves 1993a, 1993b; Liebman, Sutton, and Wuthnow 1988; Takayama 1974, 1975; and Zald and McCarthy 1987). All of the cases involve religious organizations that meet four criteria establishing them as preexisting resources for social movement mobilization: 1. National or International Hierarchies. All four religions have highly evolved nationwide or international systems of training, evaluating, appointing, and promoting

Mobilization 28

members at all ranks (though the systems differ, as discussed below). All have interpersonal networks at the local and national (or international) levels. They offer frequent opportunities for members' social and professional contact, and a host of sites for gathering, such as schools and places of worship. Moreover, members of these organizations take their membership seriously and care about the fate of the institution. Even insurgents within the organization frame their challenge to the leadership in terms of revitalizing the organization. 2. Ideological Resources for Social Movement Activism. Although none of the four cases was actively involved in social movements at the beginning of the period of study, all have ideological elements conducive to protest and histories of activism that can be called upon as precedent. The African-American church could draw on biblical imagery, American constitutional ideals, and a long history of resistance to slavery and discrimination. Shiì Islam could draw on activist themes from the early years of Islam, as well as precedents for confronting secular authorities. Burmese Buddhism drew on decades of anticolonial and postcolonial activism. Even the Roman Catholic Church, criticized by liberation theologians within its own ranks for its history of political apathy, has a simultaneous history of confronting political power (Mecham 1934). Liberation theologians self-consciously linked themselves with this alternative history: Gustavo Gutiérrez, for instance, named his research institute after Bartolomé de Las Casas, an activist sixteenth-century bishop. 3. Autonomy from the State. The state does not pay the religious officials' salaries, appoint religious officials, or dictate the content of religious doctrine. In the case of Islam, this characteristic distinguishes the Shiì branch from the Sunni. Unlike many Sunni countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the Shiì religious establishment in Iran traditionally has not depended primarily on the state for its budget.3 In the case of Burmese Buddhism, the state has attempted since independence in 1948 to reestablish control over the religious hierarchy that was lost during the British conquest in the nineteenth century, but has only succeeded since the crackdown of 1990. The African-American church has never received considerable support from the state. The Latin American Catholic church, though it long enjoyed the status of official state religion in many countries, relies primarily on parishioners' contributions, land ownership, and international resources that make it financially independent of the state.

3 These comments apply to the period prior to the revolution of 1979; since that time the Shiì religious establishment has become far more integrated into the state and more hierarchical.

4. Autonomy from Outside Groups. Each of these religions raises funds from members rather than relying on outside "conscience constituents." In the African-American church, this characteristic historically distinguished clergymen from other African-American elites and allowed greater, though still limited, freedom of action. The four cases also differ in terms three variables: political opportunity, organizational opportunity, and organizational mobilization. This allows us to test the correlation of organizational opportunity and mobilization while "controlling" for political opportunity (see summary in table 1). The variables are: 1. Political Opportunity. The political context ranges from the overt hostility of the Latin American military regimes towards the Catholic church in the 1960s and 1970s (Lernoux 1982: 463-70) to the national-level political opportunities that opened up for African-American activists in the 1950s (McAdam 1982). In Burma and prerevolutionary


29

Laurie Johnston

Placed Image

Mobilization 30

Iran, the picture is murkier. In both cases, the state combined repression and attempts at cooptation. In Iran, this continued until the decisive shift of elite alliances in fall 1978; in Burma until the decisive turn to force in fall 1990. Changing political opportunity affected organizational mobilization in Burma, where the state crackdown forced organizational activists to retreat. In Iran, by contrast, organizational mobilization appears to have preceded, not followed, changes in political opportunity (Kurzman 1996). If political opportunity were the only factor at work here, we would expect the greatest level of organizational mobilization from the African-American church and the least from Latin American Catholicism. Yet, as shown below, the African American church was the least mobilized organization in our matched set of cases, and organizational mobilization within Latin American Catholicism declined as political opportunity opened up with democratization in the 1980s. Indeed, Smith (1991) has argued with regard to Latin American liberation theology that state repression generated church sympathy for the activists—the lack of political opportunity may have contributed to the maintenance of organizational opportunity. I conclude from this that organizational opportunity may play an independent role in mediating political opportunity and organizational mobilization. The interaction among the various forms of opportunity structures is a fertile field for future research. 2. Organizational Opportunity. The four cases were selected expressly to vary in complementary fashion on this variable: two of the four organizations displayed significant organizational opportunity at the start of social movement mobilization in the 1950s-1960s, while two had lower levels. In each pair, one organization displayed significant organizational opportunity in the 1970s-1980s, while one had fewer opportunity (figure 1). Thus the cases vary in the level of opportunity for religious activists, both across cases and (for Catholicism and Shi`ism) over time. The details will be described in the narrative case studies below. 3. Organizational Mobilization: the Dependent Variable. The success of activists in coopting the religious organization also varies among the four cases. In the African-American church, mobilization was low: activists were unable to win over the church's largest organization to civil rights activism. In Iranian Shi`ism, mobilization grew to the point where activist clerics took over the "mosque network" during the course of the revolutionary mobilization of 1978. In Latin American Catholicism, mobilization was middle-range in the 1970s, when liberation theologians were able to devote substantial church resources to base-community activism, but lower in the 1980s, when liberation theologians and base communities were forced to restrain their activism or leave the church. Finally, Burmese Buddhism maintained a middle level of organizational mobilization since the late nineteenth century, despite the attempts of conservative leaders to rein in their activities, until the 1990 military crackdown, as described below. SOURCE MATERIAL This qualitative comparative-historical study is based mainly on secondary sources, supplemented by three forms of primary material: the writings of the major players in each case in English and, for the case of Liberation Theology, Spanish; contemporaneous journalistic accounts, in English, of key episodes in each case; and a variety of Persian-language sources for the Iranian case (discussed in Kurzman 1995). These sources were read with an eye towards organizational opportunity and internal conflict within the religious organization. Therefore, the case studies that follow do not present a full picture of the social movements involved; the grievances, political context, mobilization, ideology, and outcomes are largely ignored in favor of a focus on


31

Figure 1. Temporal Variations in Organizational Opportunities. organizational infighting (keeping in mind that certain of these factors were taken into account during the process of case selection, as discussed above). This perspective may appear to place undue emphasis on dirty laundry; it certainly presents the religious organizations in a less than holy light. However, it is intended to balance the relative neglect of this arena in the literatures on three of the four cases (church conflict plays a fairly prominent role in discussions of Catholic liberation theology), and in social movement theory more generally. Each case is narrated according to its own internal logic, but each includes the following elements: the initial organizational opportunity, the initial level of organizational activism, the interaction of challengers and leaders, the final organizational opportunity, and the final level of organizational activism. THE NATIONAL BAPTIST CONVENTION, U.S.A., INC.4 AND THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, 1950s-1960s The Baptist church has long been one of the most influential organizations in the African-American community. However, it has not always been politically active, relying oftentimes on an all-powerful God who would right all wrongs without human assistance (Lincoln 1984: 55). During the first half of the twentieth century, Baptist and other African-American churches were largely otherworldly and politically accom-modating (Frazier [1963] 1964: 86; Powdermaker 1943; Richardson 1947: 164). The church arguably went through a period of "deradicalization" (Wilmore 1983: 135-66) at this time, although some contemporary observers felt that the church was the center of "new 4 The abbreviations appended to the Convention's name differentiate it from smaller splinter denominations. The present paper is concerned solely with the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.

Laurie Johnston

Placed Image

Mobilization 32

racial aspirations and demands" (Allredge 1930: 319), "at last becoming alive to the needs of a people handicapped by social distinctions" (Woodson 1921: 304). Mays and Nicholson's classic study emphasizes the quietism of the African-American church, but also notes activist elements: "It is taken for granted that Negro ministers will courageously oppose lynching, Jim Crow law, and discrimination in the expenditure of tax money" (Mays and Nicholson [1933] 1969: 291). Since there was no widespread protest movement during this period, however, the church's activism was necessarily fragmented and sporadic. As the civil rights movement accelerated in the 1950s and early 1960s, ministers were prominent among the leaders. McAdam (1982: 254-56) lists 66 ministers among 183 "indigenous protest leaders" from the first phase of the civil rights movement. Aldon Morris's influential book, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement (1984), notes: The black church functioned as the institutional center of the modern

civil rights movement. Churches provided the movement with an organized mass base; a leadership of clergymen largely economically independent of the larger white society and skilled in the art of managing people and resources; an institutionalized financial base through which protest was financed; and meeting places where the masses planned tactics and strategies and collectively committed themselves to the struggle (Morris 1984: 4).

Alliances of African-American ministers existed, Morris continues, at the local, regional, and national levels. If these ministers, through their informal and formal bodies, could be

persuaded to support protest activity, each could then mobilize his own slice of the community. The National Baptist Convention, one such body, operates on the national level with a membership of more than 5 million (Morris 1984: 12).

However, we should be careful not to exaggerate the church's commitment to the civil rights movement (Reed 1986: 51). Although individual ministers were clearly active, the African-American ministry as a whole was never mobilized for the civil rights movement. In particular, the group mentioned specifically by Morris, the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.—the nation's largest African-American religious organization representing more than 18,000 ministers and almost half of all African-American Christians (Yearbook of American Churches 1954)—became increasingly hostile as the civil rights movement progressed. The president of the Convention since 1953, Reverend Joseph Harrison Jackson, was no opponent of civil rights per se, as he often pointed out (Jackson 1980: 462-63). Initially, he even supported outspoken activism (Hamilton 1972: 119-21). At the 1956 Convention, Jackson praised Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., the young leader of an Alabama desegregation boycott that Jackson had helped to raise money to support (Fitts 1985: 100; King 1967: 10; Paris 1991: 39-40). Jackson spoke at a celebratory church service when the boycott succeeded several months later. He [Jackson] never had openly endorsed the boycott, and he said

almost nothing of it that day. Nevertheless, his presence as the titular head of the largest and most powerful organization controlled by


33

American Negroes guaranteed an enormous, respectful crowd, estimated at up to eight thousand people. His was the kind of power King and [Reverend Ralph David] Abernathy dreamed about when they spoke of spreading the [civil rights] movement through the instruments of a militant church (Branch 1988: 195-96).

In 1957, however, the organizational opportunity for civil rights activism within the largest African-American church worsened significantly as Jackson consolidated his control and began to grow hostile to the civil rights movement (Branch 1988: 228), going so far as to ban the sale of King's book at the 1958 Convention (Peeks 1971: 311). These developments represent a shift along both axes of organizational opportunity: increasing authority within the organization and increasing hostility to social movement activism. Reasoning that "the last thing the [civil rights] movement needed was a man of Jackson's stature building a backfire" (Abernathy 1989: 173), pro-civil rights ministers attempted to win over the organization. At the 1960 Convention, Reverend Gardner C. Taylor ran against Jackson pledging to place the Convention "in the forefront of the civil rights struggle," as a spokesman put it, to open a political office in Washington, D.C., and to support other civil rights organizations (New York Times, Sept. 9, 1960: 60). In a chaotic scene, Jackson walked out of the convention with many of his followers. The remaining ministers elected Taylor president by a vote of 1,864 to 536, but Jackson declared the election void and retained control of the organization (Branch 1988: 335-39; Hamilton 1972: 161-63; King 1967: 75-77). "The contest was no longer the candidacy of Dr. Gardner C. Taylor," Jackson later wrote. "Had [Jackson's opponents] succeeded, more than six million Negroes would have been delivered into somebody's pockets" (Jackson 1980: 428). It is clear from this turmoil that the African-American church was not wholeheartedly in favor of the civil rights movement. In Birmingham, Alabama, one activist minister estimated, 90 percent of African-American ministers shunned the civil rights campaign (Fairclough 1981: 183). In any case, the civil rights faction had failed in its take-over bid of the largest African-American religious organization. At the next Convention, in 1961, Jackson beat Taylor by a vote of 2,732 to 1,519 (Branch 1988: 501-507; Taylor 1994: 148-49). With subsequent purges, the Convention became fully antagonistic to the civil rights tactics of civil disobedience and direct action. "The methods that we employ in the present struggle must not lead us into open opposition to the laws of the land," Jackson said at the 1964 Convention. "Why not build for ourselves instead of boycotting what others have produced?" (Jackson 1970: 139, 141). As a result of the lack of organizational opportunity, organizational mobilization of the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc., remained low. After a brief legal challenge to Jackson’s control, pro-civil rights ministers despaired of reforming the organization. "Too many Negro churches," King concluded, "are so absorbed in a future good 'over yonder' that they condition their members to adjust to the present evils 'over here'" (Wilmore 1983: 179). "Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic," King wrote elsewhere, echoing longstanding themes in the African-American church. "Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world?" (King [1963] 1964: 96). Yet the civil rights ministers retained their pulpits. While Jackson could dismiss the activists from the Convention, African-American Baptist ministers are selected by their congregations, which provide a basis for alternative modes of social movement mobilization. When civil rights ministers were forced to "move . . . outside the denominational setting" (Childs 1980: 45), they created alternative structures such as the

Mobilization 34

Progressive National Baptist Convention (Fitts 1985: 101-05; Lincoln and Mamiya 1990: 36-37), the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (Garrow 1986; Morris 1996), the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights (Morris 1993: 634), the National Conference of Black Christians (Sawyer 1994), and a multitude of local organizations. In sum, the African-American church provided many leaders a forum for mobilization and social networks that spread the movement throughout the African-American community, both locally and nationally. But activist ministers within the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc., involved themselves in the civil rights movement against the will of their denomination's most powerful national leader. Jackson retained the presidency of the nation's primary African-American church organization until 1982. "Today," wrote the succeeding president, "I feel that the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc., and the philosophy of Dr. King can be reunited" (Carter 1984: 22). But this attitudinal shift in organizational opportunity opened too late, for the civil rights movement had already waned. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND LATIN AMERICAN LIBERATION THEOLOGY, 1960s-1990s "Theology of liberation"—an activist reinterpretation of Christian gospel—was coined in 1968 in a small fishing town in Peru (Gutiérrez [1968] 1990), far from the center of church power. However, it drew inspiration from the pope himself. The reforms of Vatican II in the early 1960s constituted a considerable initial organizational opportunity along the attitudinal dimension, opening the church to new interpretations and this-worldly political commitments. The early liberation theologians felt they were working within this mandate (Gutiérrez 1985). At the least, they wrapped themselves in the mantle of Vatican II to stave off criticism from church conservatives. Liberation theologians pursued two projects that were related but quite distinct: ideology building and community organizing (Segundo [1983] 1990). The ideological project involved the production of numerous analyses of the church's role in contemporary society and raised two main themes corresponding to the two dimensions of organizational opportunity. First, liberation theologians appealed to church leadership to view social movement activism positively. Using Marxist analysis, liberation theologians argued that the church must involve itself in liberation movements of the Third World. In a world rife with class conflict, they argued, the church should not claim neutrality, but must take the side of the oppressed. In the late 1970s, as revolutionary ideologies waned throughout the world, liberation theologians began to downplay their Marxist and radical rhetoric. Nonetheless, liberation theology is arguably the only revolutionary ideology of the 1960s to survive into the 1990s. The second ideological strain involved the reform of the church, calling on church leaders to open organizational opportunities along the authority dimension through democratization of church structure. Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez called this ideological development "undoubtedly one of the most important and permanent contributions of [Vatican II]." [T]he Church should signify in its own internal structure the salvation

whose fulfillment it announces. . . . Because the church has inherited its structures and its lifestyle from the past, it finds itself today somewhat out of step with the history which confronts it (Gutiérrez [1971] 1973: 258-59, 261, 255).


35

Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff baldly accused the church of authoritarianism andhuman rights violations (Boff [1981] 1985: 32-46):

It is to be expected that the old Church will distrust the new Church onthe periphery [i.e., liberation theology and the "base communities," tobe discussed momentarily] with its gospel freedoms. It will call it aparallel Church, with its own magisterium [church authority],disobedient and disloyal to the center! The new Church will have to. .. . understand that the institution can do nothing else but make use ofa language that safeguards its own power, that the institution fears anywithdrawal from its dictates, viewing such as disloyalty. The newChurch will have to remain faithful to its path. It will have to beloyally disobedient (Boff [1981] 1985: 63).

Turning from ideology to outreach, liberation theology's second project was toorganize "base ecclesial communities" through which the laity, especially the poor, couldparticipate in religious, social, and political activities (Hebblethwaite 1994). Some evencalled these base communities the true source of church authority (Boff [1977] 1986), ina challenge to the authority of the Vatican. The resources of the Catholic church werecentral in providing clerical leaders for these movements, subsidizing these efforts,providing meeting spaces, and so on.

Beginning in the early 1970s, however, and especially after the investiture ofPope John Paul II in 1978, the leaders of the Catholic church cooled to liberationtheology, reducing organizational opportunity on the attitudinal dimension even as theyadopted some of liberation theology's themes. The pope, for instance, committed himselfin strong language to the alleviation of poverty and inequality, causes which "cannot beforeign to the church" (John Paul II [1986] 1990: 501). The Vatican also praised basecommunities as "a source of great hope for the church" (Ratzinger and Bovone [1986]1990: 483). At the same time, the Vatican attacked other aspects of liberation theology.The most direct criticism focused on the use of Marxist analyses, which "are notcompatible with the Christian conception of humanity and society" (Ratzinger and Bovone[1984] 1990: 402).

The closing of organizational opportunity on the attitudinal dimension alsoinvolved a defense of church authority structures (Doyle 1992). In a speech directedtowards liberation theologians, Pope John Paul II emphasized "how absurd it is toimagine that there exists alongside of-without actually saying contrary to-the churchbuilt up around the bishop, another church regarded as 'charismatic' and not institutional,'new' and not traditional, an alternative and, as has been recently advocated, a 'popularchurch"' (John Paul II [1982] 1990: 325). Even when speaking out in favor of basecommunities, Vatican directives emphasized the need for "fidelity to the teaching of themagisterium [church authority]" and "to the hierarchical order of the church" (Ratzingerand Bovone [1986] 1990: 483). The Vatican moved to enforce these ideological limitswith occasional sanctions against individual theologians (Cox 1988; Pasca 1984, 1985;Peerman 1988).

Liberation theologians and sympathetic observers by and large responded to theclosing of organizational opportunities by downplaying challenges to the Vatican'sauthority (Berryman 1987: 198-99; Sigmund 1990: 180). Gutierrez stated categorically,"The notion that we must create an alternative to the church is something that Ipersonally do not and cannot accept" (Breckenridge 1993: 154). Boff wrote that heaccepted "the hierarchical constitution of the church by divine institution" (Sigmund 1990:

36 Mobilization

159), though several years later he resigned from the Franciscan Order with bitter wordsabout hidebound church hierarchy (Boff 1992). Also, liberation theologians abandonedmuch of the Marxist rhetoric that the Vatican had objected to (C. Smith 1991: 230).

The reforms of Vatican II did not significantly alter the authority dimension oforganizational opportunity in the church, as the Vatican retained the ability to appoint,assign, and promote all church personnel. The Vatican now used this authority to appointnon-liberation theologians, even anti-liberation theologians, as bishops and cardinals.Alfonso Lopez Trujillo of Colombia, perhaps liberation theology's most prominentopponent in Latin America, was named a cardinal in 1983, while no liberationtheologians were so honored. The appointment of bishops in Brazil favored non-activists(Adriance 1995: 106-07; Mainwaring 1986: 249); one Vatican official commented that"there is no doubt that the pope looks for men who are going to lead the church in thedirection he thinks it ought to go" (Nest' York Times, June 8, 1988: A3). In Peru, "Newappointees [as bishop] tend to be timid, closed and very dependent on the Pope" (McCoy1989: 528; see also Pena 1995: 120-86).

As a result of the shutting of organizational opportunity, the base communitiesfound themselves somewhat out of favor. In some cases, according to ethnographicstudies, they remained active but increasingly autonomous from the church (Canin 1993;Emge 1990: 93). Elsewhere, as in Brazil where clerical leadership was more important(Burdick 1993), communities simply became less active (Hewitt 1991), though somebase-community leaders left the church to remain politically committed (Mainwaring1989: 173).

As for the liberation theologians themselves, the Vatican did not eject them fromthe church in large numbers; but neither did the activists succeed in converting the churchinto a social movement organization. Instead, the liberation theologians turned for supportto semiautonomous subunits within the church such as the Jesuit and Maryknoll orders.As one liberation theologian noted, "Religious orders made the Church a complexorganization which gave us many places to reside and survive" (C. Smith 1991: 205-06). 5

In addition, the liberation theologians created new organizations: research centers,international groupings, and so on (C. Smith 1991: 206). This provided an organizationalinfrastructure for protest, but not one with the tremendous resources of the CatholicChurch as a whole.

SHI'I ISLAM AND THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION OF 1979

Activist Iranian ruhanfs (Shi'i Islamic clerics) succeeded during the revolution of 1979in taking over the leadership of Shi'i Islam. However, Shi'i Islam was anything butrevolutionary in the decades prior to the 1970s. In the 1950s, Ayatullah SayyidMuhammad Husayn Burujirdi, the leader of the nihkn yat-the clerical establishment-was so staunchly opposed to political activism that he placed Ayatullah RuhullahKhomeini, already recognized as a leader of the insurgents within the religiousestablishment, under virtual house arrest. "There was no coming and going in[Khomeini's] house," one follower recalled. Aside from teaching duties, "his relationswith everyone were cut off" (Davani 1987: 49).

5 It is telling that a recent anniversary celebration for liberation theology was held not in Latin America,though most of the honored attendees came from the region, but in New York, where the Maryknoll Order is

based (C. Smith 1991: 232).


37

In the early 1960s, activist clerics felt that organizational opportunity in theestablished clerical institutions was so limited that they had to create their own neworganizations.

When we started publishing [the journal] Shi'i Teaching, it was in ourminds that we needed a cadre and network throughout [the country].We thought the most important work to be done in preparing theground for a widespread political movement was both to revive thosethoughts [activist interpretations of Islam] and to have a network, sothat some day, when we want to get in contact, we can establishrelations with the whole country. Of course, there was a naturalnetwork in the clergy: the mosques, the meeting halls, the prayermeetings, we always had this groundwork, but the journal was a betterstep. (Hashimi-Rafsanjiini 1987: 42)

Burujirdi's death in 1961 caused "disarray" within the ruhaniyat, openingorganizational opportunity along the authority dimension because no single Shi'i religiousleader was prestigious or powerful enough to replace him (Akhavi 1980: 94). Activistswithin the ruhaniyat debated whether to do away entirely with the hierarchical leadershipstructure that Burujirdi had symbolized. Though they were unable to accomplish thisgoal, neither did they suffer repression from senior clerics (Akhavi 1980: 117-29;Lambton 1964). Instead, the activists continued to forge nation-wide links. Through the1970s they recruited among leftist students and even sent a few followers abroad formilitary training (Kurzman 1992: 113). Most importantly, they encouraged the formationof thousands of religious study groups, especially among the poor (Arjomand 1988: 92),that may be somewhat analogous to the Latin American base communities.

Still, the number of activist clerics remained relatively low. Even among theseminary students of Qum, the most activist segment of the religious establishment, onlyforty percent were activists on the eve of the revolution, according to an estimate by aformer seminarian.' Moreover, this figure had been bolstered by the large number ofKhomeini's students expelled in the mid-1970s from Iraq, where Khomeini taught inexile.' Among more senior clerics, the proportion was undoubtedly considerably lower.

Khomeini complained repeatedly of his colleagues' support for the Iranianmonarchy. For instance:

If people became aware of the principles of the Koran and learnedabout the important duty of the clergy and spiritual leaders of Islam,those who appear to be spiritual men and clerics in the royal courtwould be eliminated. If these dishonest, counterfeit clerics are excludedfrom society and no longer deceive the people, the ruthless system [ofthe monarchy] will never succeed in executing the awful plans ofimperialists (Parsa 1989: 197).

While most clerical leaders remained reluctant to support social movementactivism, organizational opportunity existed because these leaders did not have the power

' Ismail, an Iranian rahkni interviewed by the author in Istanbul, Turkey, on December 11. 1989.

7 Hasan, an Iranian rahoni interviewed by the author in Istanbul, Turkey, on November 11, 1989.

38

to reprimand activists within the ruhantyat. In one significant incident in January 1978,activist seminary students protested a newspaper article libeling Khomeini by marchingfrom the house of one leading ayatullah to another, demanding that they speak out againstthe government. The ayatullahs denounced the insult to Khomeini and defensivelyclaimed oppositional status. "These people [the government authorities] are lying whenthey say we agree with their works. The 'ulama' [clerics] are all in the opposition," saidAyatullah Muhammad-Riza Gulpayigani. At the same time, Gulpayigani urged theseminarians not to protest so publicly, since this might provoke state repression: "I knowthat steps must be taken [politically], and I am taking them, but this sort of thing-myview is that it must be peaceful, not in such a way that they will do in the 'AzamMosque, too, like the Fayziyah Seminary [closed by security forces three years earlierafter a similar student protest]. " 8

The next day, a second demonstration of seminary students in Qum was met withgunfire; dozens of protestors were killed. Now the leading ayatullahs issued more pointedstatements condemning state violence, but without condemning the state itself. Khomeinicommented sarcastically that the great religious leaders of Qum "have stated who isresponsible for the crime-not explicitly, it is true-but by implication, which is moreeffective. May God keep them steadfast."

On numerous occasions during the revolutionary movement of 1978-1979, seniorclerics called in vain for restraint, but were unable to shut down organizationalopportunity within the ruhaniyat. The example of 90-year-old Ayatullah HusseinKhadimi, the senior cleric in Isfahan, is telling. In July 1978, lay activists staged a sit-inat Khadimi's home, protesting the state's treatment of political prisoners. Khadimi urgedthe activists to leave: "I implore you to end your sit-in and hunger strike and return toyour homes. Rest assured that if, God forbid, the aforementioned acceptance of yourdemands proves illusory, you can come back to me." The activists left, but returned fora much larger sit-in the next month with new grievances. Traditional clerical authoritybased on seniority had broken down to such an extent that a younger radical cleric alliedwith Khomeini wrote to Khadimi virtually ordering him to become more sympatheticto the activists: "For some time, the nmh n yat has made no demonstrations against theregime. . . . Lest you appear to be in opposition to them [activists], accept them [intoyour house] and give them a warm reception. Take the side of the people so that theyalso cooperate [with the movement] and leave the religious services and go out on strikeuntil our goal is achieved" (Zamfmih-i Khabar-Namih 1978, Vol. 20: 29). By the fall of1978, Khadimi had "stopped attending services," according to the U.S. consul in Isfahan(Asnad-i Lanih-i Jasusi 1980-1991, Vol. 13, Part 1: 82).

The radicals had so completely commandeered the religious establishment thatthe less militant senior clerics either kept quiet or adopted the language of the radicals.The three most eminent ayatullahs in Iran, for example, whatever their private opinions,issued a proclamation in November 1978 praising the noble struggle of Islam against thetreasonous monarchy (Zamfmih-i Khabar-Namih 1978, Vol. 22: 61). At least one of

them, Ayatullah Kazim Shari'at-Madari, was known to be skeptical of the revolutionarymovement (Kurzman 1994: 62, 66).

Even after the social movement had achieved its primary political goal, theouster of the shah, organizational opportunity along the authority dimension continued toexist for some months. Khomeini and his clerical supporters now controlled the resourcesof the ruhaniyat, but senior clerics enjoyed a certain freedom to speak out against

8 The following narrative follows Kurzman (1994), except where noted.

Mobilization


39

Khomeini's policies. In the most famous case, Shari'at-Madari charted a somewhatindependent course and allowed a political party to be organized with his blessing(Akhavi 1980: 172-80). As Khomeini's clerical followers assumed state power throughmid-1979, however, they were able to shut down organizational opportunity within theruhdnayat. In 1982, Shari'at-Madiiri, who had become the leading symbol of clericalopposition to Khomeini, was publicly denounced as a monarchist collaborator, placedunder house arrest, and stripped of his religious authority (Bakhash 1984: 223).

In sum, Khomeini and other activists within the Shi'i religious establishmentwere able to mobilize the "mosque network" for revolutionary purposes only after thedeath of Ayatullah Burujirdi, when no comparably powerful successor emerged tomaintain centralized control over the ruhaniyat. Taking advantage of the opening oforganizational opportunity along the authority dimension, the activists built new, parallelnetworks in order to prepare their forces for organizational mobilization, andoverpowered reluctant religious leaders during the revolutionary period of 1978-1979.The activists consolidated their control over the riihaniyat after mid-1979, using thepower of the state.

BURMESE BUDDHISM AND OPPOSITION TO MILITARY RULE, 1962-1990

The Burmese sangha, or monkhood, has been a source of political activism sincethe late nineteenth century, when the British conquered the region. Part of this activismhas been the result of changes in the organization of the sangha. Prior to colonization,the king of Burma was "remarkably successful" in controlling the sangha through theappointment of the thathanabaing, the chief monk (Bechert 1970: 769). The British,fearing the potential for organized resistance to their rule, limited the powers of thisoffice, and discontinued it entirely in the early 20th century, opening organizationalopportunity along the authority dimension by reducing the sangha leaders' ability tocontrol the activities of the monks (Mendelson 1975: 179ff; Sarkisyanz 1965: 11 Off; D.Smith 1965: 45ff; Woodward 1988). A small but visible minority of the sangha becameprominent among the movements against British rule (Spiro 1982: 378). The sanghaelders, who remained "very conservative," decried such activism as "highly undesirable,"but no longer had the power to restrain activist monks (D. Smith 1965: 55). By contrast,the Shwegyin order of monks, which maintained sturdier organizational discipline duringthe colonial period than the main Thudhamma order, remained noticeably more apolitical(Ferguson 1978). But the Shwegyin constituted less than fifteen percent of the sangha(Spiro 1982: 316; Than Tun 1988: 166).

During the first years after independence in 1948, monks continued to play anactive role in Burmese politics, culminating in their conflicts with Prime Minister U Nuin 1960-1962. U Nu ran for reelection in 1960 on a Buddhist revivalist platform,promising among other things to make Buddhism the state religion. Non-Buddhistreligious minorities sought protections for their communities; when U Nu began to offersome measures in this direction, significant segments of the sangha mobilized inopposition (Mendelson 1975: 352-5; D. Smith 1965: 272-74). Again, prominent sanghaleaders appealed to monks to cease their activism, to no avail (D. Smith 1965: 275).

Therefore, organizational opportunity had long existed on the authoritydimension, and activist members of the sangha had a long tradition of politicalmobilization behind them when General Ne Win carried out a coup d'etat in March 1962.The period of military rule since 1962 has witnessed a continuation of this tradition withperiodic mobilizations by monks against military rule. In 1962 and again in 1965, large

40

Mobilization

portions of the sangha resisted government attempts to register monks. U Nu's effortsto accomplish this in the 1950s had foundered on sangha opposition, and Ne Win's didas well (Silverstein 1977: 97-98; M. Smith 1991: 205-06; Tin Maung Maung Than 1988:52). In 1963, monks protested the repeal of pro-Buddhist laws passed in the U Nu era(Bechert 1984: 151), such as official observance of Buddhist holidays (D. Smith 1965:283). In 1970 through 1972, the army clamped down on militant monks in northernBurma who constituted the regime's sole remaining opposition force (Lintner 1990: 88).In 1974, monks demonstrated against the state's disrespectful burial of U Thant, theformer head of the United Nations (Lintner 1990: 52).

Not all monks, however, opposed the military regime. Some had welcomed thecoup d'etat of 1962: "They liked the idea of a strong ruler who promised change and whocould solve all their problems," said one monk. "It was rather like Hitler in Germany"(M. Smith 1991: 204). In 1980, more than 1,000 senior monks cooperated with themilitary regime in order to reestablish the sort of discipline within the sangha that brokedown at the time of the British conquest. Meeting in a general conference, they createda national governing body for the sangha, the Sangha Maha Nayaka ( Great MonkhoodCouncil) (Bechert 1984: 154; Matthews 1993: 415; Taylor 1987: 358; Tin Maung MaungThan 1988: 36-40). This new organization specified a clerical hierarchy, required monksto carry identification papers, and created a disciplinary system for punishing ordefrocking disobedient monks (Tin Maung Maung Than 1988: 40-45). However, thisattempt to bolster authority structures and reduce organizational opportunity failed toachieve widespread compliance (Tin Maung Maung Than 1993: 33).

After a half-decade of relative calm, thousands of monks joined theprodemocracy movement of 1988. On August 2, monks participated with students andothers at a large demonstration at the Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon, calling on themilitary government to step aside. On August 8, a general strike featured "a disciplinedcolumn of hundreds of Buddhist monks carrying their alms bowls upside down to indicatethat the entire nation was on strike" (Lintner 1990: 92-94). In Mandalay, senior monkssuch as U Kahwiya, U Kawainda, and later U Yaiwata and U Laba allowed theirmonasteries to be used as bases for the protest movement, and set up organizations suchas the Sangha Samaggi (Monks' Committee) in competition with the Sangha Maha

Nayaka (Maung 1992: 175-76, 184-86). Also, younger monks organized the All-BurmaYoung Monks Union, a national group that aspired to mobilize the sangha politicallyoutside of traditional seniority hierarchies (Clements 1992: 49; Matthews 1993: 421).

An estimated 80 percent (Matthews 1993: 419) of Burma's 120,000 monks(Steinberg 1990: 51) favored the prodemocracy movement. Large portions of theorganizational resources of the sangha were being used for social movement purposes,in particular the monasteries of Rangoon and Mandalay that became focal points for thenational movement. However, the senior monks of the Sangha Maha Nayaka consistentlydisapproved of social movement activism. On August 10, 1988, two days after thegeneral strike and massive, illegal pro-democracy demonstrations, the Sangha Maha

Nayaka issued this ambivalent statement:

The people of the country, both sangha and laity, should live peacefullywithin the framework of the law and should submit to the governmenttheir just aspirations by peaceful means ... a special request has beenmade to the Government to fulfil as far as possible the people's lawfulaspirations (Aung San Suu Kyi 1991: 192).


41

This statement-similar to ones made by Reverend Joseph H. Jackson in the early 1960sand by moderate Iranian ayatullahs in January 1978-sounds sympathetic to the activistsbut condemns the civil disobedience at the heart of their activism. It was recognized asproblematic by Burmese activists (Abbott 1990: 160). One official of the Sangha MahaNayaka accused activist monks of anti-Buddhist behavior: acts that may "taint their moraland spiritual virtue," as well as "words and deeds that may break the unity of the SanghaCommittees at different levels ... the worst kind of sin under Buddhism-causing schismamong the Sangha" (FBIS-EAS, Oct. 3, 1988: 34).

When the military reasserted control in September 1988, some monks continuedto protest. Troops were brought to Rangoon in November and "surrounded all majormonasteries" with orders "that if they saw any men in yellow clothes, these were only' robed persons' and not monks," and therefore not immune to repression (Lintner 1990:164). In 1989 and early 1990, when the military regime allowed elections, "the sanghawas at the forefront of agitation" (Matthews 1993: 420). This agitation was aimed not justat the military regime, but also at the conservative monks of the Sangha Maha Nayakawho supported the regime (Maung 1992: 177).

When the military annulled the elections-the results had gone againstthem-monks took the initiative. According to Lintner 1994: 310-311), "On 8 August1990, the second anniversary of the 1988 uprising, thousands of Buddhist monks marchedthrough the streets of Mandalay. . . . Some soldiers apparently over-reacted. " Severalmonks were shot, others beaten and arrested. In response, many monks refused toperform religious services for soldiers and their families, "in effect excommunicatinganyone associated with the military. " The Sangha Maha Nayaka issued statementsopposed to the boycott, and again called for sangha unity (FBIS-EAS, Oct. 19, 1990: 50-51; Oct. 22, 1990: 38). At one meeting between Sangha Maha Nayaka officials andgovernment military leaders, a general asked "how much power the senior monks presentat the meeting had to resolve the problem and whether they have influence over othermonks" (FBIS-EAS, Oct. 19, 1990: 51). This was precisely the issue: organizationalopportunity had existed since the late nineteenth century because the senior monks'authority over the sangha was limited. As it turned out, the Sangha Maha Nayaka provedunable to end the 1990 boycott; "hardline" monks rejected its instructions and promisedto continue (FBIS-EAS, Oct. 22, 1990: 37). As a result, the military stepped in andcrushed the monks' opposition, attacking all 133 monasteries in Mandalay, the center ofsangha activism, and arresting scores of monks (Clements 1992: 51; Lintner 1994: 312;Maung 1992: 185-86).

Burmese sangha activism virtually ceased with the crackdown of fall 1990. Yetthe end of Buddhist activism in Burma did not come about as a result of the victory ofthe non-activists within the sangha. It came about as an indirect result of their failure.Because they proved unable to control the activists within the sangha and closeorganizational opportunity, the military took it upon itself to step in and shut downpolitical opportunity. Thus the wave of activism ended with relatively high levels oforganizational opportunity and organizational mobilization.

CONCLUSION

The four cases in this study display a strong correlation between organizationalopportunity and organizational mobilization for social movement purposes. In the caseof the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc., civil rights activists perceived a limitedopportunity for church reform and attempted to take over the organization. Despite thenational-level political opportunity that McAdam (1982) and others have identified, these

42 Mobilization

activists were unable to unseat the leadership of the Convention, the largest institution inthe African-American church. The Convention subsequently hardened its antimovementstance. While organizational opportunity did not favor national mobilization, it allowedlocal mobilization, since the Convention had no authority to remove ministers from theircongregations. Activist ministers pursued social movement goals on an alternative basis,mobilizing at the local level, forging coalitions, and creating a new splinter denomination.

In the case of the Catholic Church, the organizational opportunity consisted ofliberalization of church attitudes at Vatican II, which allowed liberation theologians tomobilize throughout Latin America. Beginning in the early 1970s, and especially whena new pope began to express opposition to social movement activism in the late 1970s,the liberation theologians found their opportunity for action restricted. Some werepunished, while others cut back their social movement activities, and many curbed theirchallenges to church authority. As a result, the base communities they had organizedlessened their activism or left the church.

In the case of Iranian Shi'ism, activists within the ruhanyat stepped up theirmobilization after the death of Ayatullah Burujirdi in 1961, when organizationalopportunity arose from the lack of a powerful successor. Activists created alternativenational networks that bore fruit during the revolutionary events of 1978 and early 1979,when activists challenged senior leaders to reject political quiescence. The conservativeleaders did not have the organizational power to withstand this pressure, and allowed theactivists full use of the ruhanvat's resources, such as mosques and religious ceremonies.

In the case of Burmese Buddhism, organizational opportunity dated back to theBritish conquest of the late nineteenth century, when the leader of the sangha, thethathanabaing, was stripped of his power. Periodically since then, leading conservativemonks have attempted to rebuild the authority of the sangha organization, most recentlywith the creation of the Sangha Maha Nayaka in 1980, but they proved unable to controlactivist monks. Finally, in 1990, the state stepped in to control the activists, closingpolitical opportunity decisively because the sangha leaders were unable to shut downorganizational opportunity.

In sum, religious institutions with greater organizational opportunity (Burma,Iran after 1961, Catholicism before the 1980s) were partially or fully mobilized for socialmovement activism. Institutions with less organizational opportunity (the National BaptistConvention, U.S.A., Inc., Iran before 1961, and Catholicism in the 1980s) were lessmobilized for social movement activism (see table 1).

In addition, the form of activism appears to be related to the form of theorganization opportunity. In the African-American Baptist church, activism proceededfrom the local level, reflecting the power of congregations to select ministers. In theCatholic Church, semiautonomous orders such as the Jesuits and the Maryknollssupported liberation theologians when the Vatican's attitude towards activism cooled. InBurma and Iran, the religious organization was susceptible to large-scale mobilizationbecause of the removal of the strong organizational leader, by colonizers in one case andby a failure of succession in the other.

These findings suggest that the concept of organizational opportunity is usefulfor the study of social movements. In theoretical terms, discussed at the beginning of thepaper, the concept incorporates the two primary criticisms of Robert Michels's "iron lawof oligarchy": that oligarchies are not uniformly conservative; and that oligarchization isnot inevitable and permanent. Empirically, the concept helps explain when and in whatways preexisting organizations are mobilized for social movement purposes.

If the concept of organizational opportunity proves applicable to organizationsmore generally-and not simply for religious organizations historically conducive to social


43

movement activism, as in the present cases-it appears to suggest three areas for furtherresearch on social movements.

First, the concept of organizational opportunity underlines the importance of"social movements within organizations" (Zald and Berger 1978). Over the pastgeneration, social movement theory has frequently borrowed from the sociology oforganizations, but there has been relatively less influence in the other direction. Theconcept of organizational opportunity offers a conceptual framework for studyingorganizations as a locus of collective contestation over authority and resources, suggestingthat the field of power in organizations may be fruitfully studied through the lens ofsocial movement theory.

Second, the concept of organizational opportunity draws attention toorganizations within organizations. While subunits have long been studied in thesociology of organizations, social movement theory has tended to treat organizations assingle units. The cases in this study suggest that organizational activists routinely developoverlapping or substitute organizations-the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,the Bartolome de Las Casas Center, the Shi `i Teaching journal, and the MandalayMonks' Committee, for example. Each of these organizations challenged the parentorganization's control by developing alternative lines of authority and alternativeaccumulations of resources. These examples blur the distinction between the mobilizationof preexisting organizations and the creation of new organizations, and raise intriguingquestions about the relationship of the organization and its parts.

Third, the concept of organizational opportunity calls into question the effectsof resources on social movement activism. Since the 1970s, the resource mobilizationapproach has viewed resources as positively and linearly related to the emergence andsuccess of social movements. Tilly's (1978) classic hypotheses were quoted above:collective action is in part a function of the intensity of organization and "the amount ofresources under its collective control. " In this view, the more authority that organizationalleaders have over members, the more resources they are able to extract from members,the greater the likelihood of collective action.

The concept of organizational opportunity suggests that this correlation onlyholds for cases where the organizational leadership becomes devoted to social movementgoals (in other words, for the attitudinal dimension of organizational opportunity, asdefined above). In cases where the push for activism comes from the middle or lowerranks of the organization, we may have a different sort of correlation. In these cases, theleaders' high level of authority and control over resources may serve to reduceorganizational mobilization, as activists are unable or unwilling to challenge theorganizational leadership.

We may speculate that for the authority dimension of organization opportunity,the correlation between resources and collective action takes the form of an inverted-U,as several recent studies have suggested for the broader polity: extremely repressive statesare able to cow the opposition into quiescence, and non-repressive states face little unrestbecause their political systems offer channels for the institutionalized expression ofgrievances (Boswell and Dixon 1993; Gupta, Singh, and Sprague 1993; Muller 1985;Muller and Weede 1990). The middle-range of repression is most associated with socialmovement opposition. By analogy, low levels of collective control over resources makethe organization a prize not worth winning; high levels of collective control overresources make the prize unwinnable; middle levels make it both potentially winnable andworth winning, and would be associated with a greater likelihood of organizationalmobilization. The cases in this study are not well-suited to test this inverted-U hypothesisbecause they were selected to represent both forms of organizational opportunity, and not

Mobilization 44

solely the authority dimension; this work will have to be left to the proverbial future research. REFERENCES Abbott, Gerry. 1990. Back to Mandalay: An Inside View of Burma. Bromley, England: Impact Books. Abernathy, Ralph David. 1989. And the Walls Came Tumbling Down: An Autobiography. New York:

Harper and Row. Adriance, Madeleine Cousineau. 1995. Promised Land: Base Christian Communities and the Struggle

for Land in the Amazon. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Akhavi, Shahrough. 1980. Religion and Politics in Contemporary Iran: Clergy-State Relations in the

Pahlavi Period. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Allen, Robert W., and Lyman W. Porter, eds. 1983. Organizational Influence Processes. Glenview, IL:

Scott, Foresman and Company. Allredge, E.P. 1930. "A Square Look at the Negro Question: New Movements Taking Place Among the

Negroes." Pp. 317-23 in Negro Baptist History, U.S.A., L.G. Jordan, ed., Nashville, TN: The Sunday School Publishing Board, National Baptist Convention.

Ammerman, Nancy Tatom. 1990. Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Arjomand, Said Amir. 1988. The Turban for the Crown: The Islamic Revolution in Iran. New York: Oxford University Press.

Asnadni Lanih-i Jasusi (Spy Nest Documents). 1980-1991. 77 Vols. Tehran, Iran: Danishjuyani Musalman-i Payru-i Khat-i Imam.

Aung San Suu Kyi. 1991. Freedom From Fear and Other Writings. New York: Viking Penguin. Bakhash, Shaul. 1984. The Reign of the Ayatollahs. New York: Basic Books. Bechert, Heinz. 1970. "Therav_da Buddhist Sangha: Some General Observations on Historical and

Political Factors in its Development." Journal of Asian Studies 29: 761-78. ________. 1984. "'To Be a Burmese is to be a Buddhist': Buddhism in Burma." Pp. 147-58 in The

World of Buddhism, H. Bechert and R. Gombrich, eds. New York: Facts on File Publications. Berryman, Phillip. 1987. Liberation Theology. New York: Pantheon Books. Billings, Dwight B. 1990. "Religion as Opposition: A Gramscian Analysis." American Journal of

Sociology 96: 1-31. Boff, Leonardo. [1977] 1986. Ecclesiogenesis: The Base Communities Reinvent the Church. Translated

by R. R. Barr. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. ________. [1981] 1985. Church, Charism and Power: Liberation Theology and the Institutional

Church. Translated by J. W. Diercksmeier. New York: Crossroad. ________. 1992. "Boff Explains." National Catholic Reporter, July 17: 12-13. Boswell, Terry, and William J. Dixon. 1993. "Marx's Theory of Rebellion: A Cross-National Analysis

of Class Exploitation, Economic Development, and Violent Revolt." American Sociological Review 58: 681-702.

Branch, Taylor. 1988. Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-63. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Breckenridge, Robert Leroy. 1993. "The Ecclesiology of Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino: Contours, Sources, and Impact." Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX.

Burdick, John. 1993. Looking for God in Brazil: The Progressive Catholic Church in Urban Brazil's Religious Arena. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Canin, Eric Jon. 1993. "Between Religion and Revolution: A Study of Grassroots Christian Communities in Managua, Nicaragua." Ph.D. Diss., Columbia University.

Carter, Weptanomah W. 1984. Born to Be President: The Story of the Life of Dr. T.J. Jemison, President, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. Baltimore, MD: Gateway Press.


45

Chaves, Mark. 1993a. "Denominations as Dual Structures: An Organizational Analysis." Sociologyof Religion 54: 147-69. . 1993b. "Intraorganizational Power and Internal Secularization in Protestant

Denominations." American Journal of Sociology 99: 1-48.Childs, John Brown. 1980. The Black Political Minister: A Study in Afro-American Politics and

Religion. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall & Co.Clements, Alan. 1992. Burma: The Next Killing F'felds? Berkeley, CA: Odonian Press.

Cox, Harvey. 1988. The Silencing of Leonardo Boff. The Vatican and the Fliture of World

Christianity. Oak Park, IL: Meyer-Stone Books.Davani, 'All. 1987. "Khatarat-i Hujjat al-Islam Aqa-yi 'Ali Davani" (Memoirs of Hujjat al-

Islam Aqa-yi 'Ali Davani). Ykd (Memory) 8: 46-56.Davis, Gerald F., and Tracy A. Thompson. 1994. "A Social Movement Perspective on Corporate

Control." Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 141-73.

Doyle, Dennis M. 1992. "Communion Ecclesiology and the Silencing of Boff." America,

September 12: 139-43.Emge, Donald Raymond. 1990. "Critical Thinking Within a Religious Context: An Analysis of the

History and Methodology of the Liberatory Communidades Ecclesiales de Base,Cuernavaca, Mexico, 1967 to 1990." Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Adult andContinuing Education, College of Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.

Fairclough, Adam. 1981. "The Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Second

Reparation, 1957-1973." South Atlantic Quarterly 80 (Spring): 177-94.

Fairholm, Gilbert W. 1993. Organizational Power Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.FBIS/EAS (Foreign Broadcast Information Service/East Asia). 1988-1992. Daily Report.

Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.Ferguson, John P. 1978. "The Quest for Legitimation by Burmese Monks and Kings: The Case

of the Shwegyin Sect (19th-20th Centuries)." Pp. 66-86 in Religion and Legitimation of

Power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma, B. L. Smith, ed., Chambersburg, PA: ANIMA

Books.Fitts, Leroy. 1985. A History of Black Baptists. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

Frazier, E. Franklin. [1963] 1964. The Negro Church in America. New York: Schocken Books.

Freeman, Jo. 1973. "The Origins of the Women's Liberation Movement." American Journal of

Sociology 78: 792-811.Garrow, David J. 1986. Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian

Leadership Conference. New York: William Morrow.

Gerlach, Luther P., and Virginia H. Hine. 1970. People, Power, Change: Movements of Social

Transformation. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Gupta, Dipak K., Harinder Singh, and Tom Sprague. 1993. "Government Coercion of Dissidents:

Deterrence or Provocation?" Journal of Conflict Resolution 37: 301-39.

Gutierrez, Gustavo. [1968] 1990. "Towards a Theology of Liberation." Pp. 62-76 in Liberation

Theology: A Documentary History, Alfred T. Hennely, ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

[1971] 1973. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Translated by

C. Inda and J. Eagleson. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

. 1985. "Vaticano II y la Iglesia latinoamericana" (Vatican II and the Latin American

Church). Pkginas (Pages; Lima, Peru) 10(August, Supplement): 1-12.

Hamilton, Charles V. 1972. The Black Preacher in America. New York: William Morrow &

Company.Hardy, Cynthia, ed. 1995. Power and Politics in Organizations. Aldershot, England: Dartmouth

Publishing Company. , and Stewart R. Clegg. 1996. "Some Dare Call It Power." Pp. 622-41 in Stewart R.

Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord, eds., Handbook of Organization Studies.

London, England: Sage Publications.Hashimi-Rafsanjani, 'Ali-Akbar. 1987. "Khatirat-i Hujjat al-Islam Hashimi-Rafsanjani Dar-

barih-yi Ta'sis-i Maktab-i Tashi"' (Memoirs of Hujjat al-Islam Hashimi-Rafsanjani on

the Founding of Shi`i Teaching). Ydd ( Memory) 8: 41-44.

46 Mobilization

Hebblethwaite, Margaret. 1994. Base Communities: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.Hennelly, Alfred T., ed. 1990. Liberation Theology: A Documentary History. Maryknoll, NY:

Orbis Books.

Hewitt, W.E. 1991. Base Christian Communities and Social Change - in Brazil. Lincoln, NE:University of Nebraska Press.

Hickson, D.J., C.R. Hinings, C.A. Lee, R.E. Schneck, and J.M. Pennings. 1971. "A StrategicContingencies' Theory of Intraorganizational Power." Administrative Science Quarterly16: 216-229.

Hinings, C.R., D.J. Hickson, J.M. Pennings, and R.E. Schneck. 1974. "Structural Conditions ofIntra-Organizational Power." Administrative Science Quarterly 9: 22-44.

Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jackson, Joseph H. [1964] 1970. "Annual Address to the National Baptist Convention, 1964." Pp.133-43 in H. Storing, ed., What Country Have I? New York: St. Martin's Press.

. 1980. A Story of Activisnm: The History of the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.Nashville, TN: Townsend Press.

Jenkins, J. Craig. 1977. "Radical Transformation of Organization Goals." Administrative Science

Quarterly 22: 568-86.John Paul II. [1984] 1990. "The Bishop: Principle of Unity." Pp. 323-34 in Liberation Theology:

A Documentary History, Alfred T. Hennely, ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

. [1986] 1990. "Letter to Brazilian Episcopal Conference." Pp. 498-506 in Liberation


King, Charles H. 1967. "Quest and Conflict: The Untold Story of the Power Struggle BetweenKing and Jackson." Negro Digest (May): 6-10, 71-79.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. [1963] 1964. "Letter From a Birmingham Jail." Pp. 77-100 in Why We

Can't Wait. New York: Harper and Row.Kitschelt, Herbert. 1990. "New Social Movements and the Decline of Party Organizations." Pp.

179-208 in Russell J. Dalton and Manfred Kuechler, eds., Challenging the Political

Order: New Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies. New York: Oxford

University Press.Kornhauser, William. 1959. The Politics of Mass Society. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Kurzman, Charles. 1992. "Structure and Agency in the Iranian Revolution of 1979," Ph.D.

Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

. 1994. "A Dynamic View of Resources: Evidence from the Iranian Revolution."Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 17: 53-84.

. 1995. "Historiography of the Iranian Revolutionary Movement, 1977-1979." Journal

of Iranian Studies 28: 25-38. . 1996. "Structural Opportunities and Perceived Opportunities in Social-Movement

Theory: Evidence from the Iranian Revolution of 1979." American Sociological Review

61: 153-70.Lambton, A.K.S. 1964. "A Reconsideration of the Position of Manja ` al-Taglid and the Religious

Institution." Studio Islamica 20:115-35.Lernoux, Penny. 1982. Cn' of the People: The Struggle for Human Rights in Latin America-The

Catholic Church in Conflict with U.S. Policy. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Lewy, Guenter. 1974. Religion and Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Liebman, Robert, John R. Sutton, and Robert Wuthnow. 1988. "Exploring the Social Sources of

Denominationism: Schism and American Protestant Denominations, 1890-1980."American Sociological Review 53: 343-52.

Lincoln, C. Eric. 1984. Race, Religion, and the Continuing American Dilemma. New York: Hill

and Wang. , and Lawrence H. Mamiya. 1990. The Black Church in the African-American

Experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Lintner, Bertil. 1990. Outrage: Burma's Struggle for Democracy. London, England: White Lotus.


47

. 1994. Burma in Revolt: Opium and Insurgency Since 1948. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.

Lipset, Seymour Martin, Martin Trow, and James Coleman. 1956. Union Democracy. Glencoe,

IL: The Free Press.-Long, Norton E. 1962. "The Administrative Organization as a Political System." Pp. 110-121 in

Sidney Mailick and Edward H. Van Ness, eds., Concepts and Issues in Administrative

Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Mainwaring, Scott. 1986. The Catholic Church and Politics in Brazil, 1916-1985. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

. 1989. "Grass-Roots Catholic Groups and Politics in Brazil." Pp. 151-92 in TheProgressive Church in Latin America, S. Mainwaring and A. Wilde, eds. Notre Dame,IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Matthews, Bruce. 1993. "Buddhism Under a Military Regime: The Iron Heel in Burma." Asian

Survey 33:408-23.Maung, Mya. 1992. Totalitarianism in Burma. New York: Paragon House.

McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. . 1996. "Conceptual Origins, Current Problems, Future Directions." Pp. 23-40 in

Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and

Mayer N. Zald, eds. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.McCarthy, John D., and Mark Wolfson. 1992. "Consensus Movements, Conflict Movements, and

the Cooptation of Civic and State Infrastructures." Pp. 273-297 in Frontiers in Social

Movement Theory, Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller, eds. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press.McClellan, David. 1987. Marxism and Religion. New York: Harper and Row.

McCoy, John A. 1989. "Liberation Theology and the Peruvian Church." America, 160(June 3):

526-30.Mecham, J. Floyd. 1934. Church and State in Latin America. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina Press.Mendelson, E. Michael. 1975. Sangha and State in Burma: A Study of Monastic Sectarianism and

Leadership. Edited by J. P. Ferguson. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Michels, Robert. [1915] 1962. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical

Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Collier Books.

Mintzberg, Henry. 1983. Power in and around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.Moaddel, Mansur. 1992. "Ideology as Episodic Discourse: The Case of the Iranian Revolution."

American Sociological Review 57: 353-79.

Morris, Aldon D. 1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing

for Change. New York: The Free Press.

. 1993. "The Birmingham Confrontation Reconsidered: An Analysis of the Dynamics of

Tactics of Mobilization." American Sociological Review 58: 621-36.

. 1996. "The Black Church in the Civil Rights Movement: The SCLC as the

Decentralized, Radical Arm of the Black Church." Pp. 29-46 in Disruptive Religion: The

Force of Faith in Social Movement Activism, Christian Smith, ed. New York: Routledge.

Muller, Edward N. 1985. "Income Inequality, Regime Repressiveness, and Political Violence."

American Sociological Review 50: 47-61.Muller, Edward N., and Erich Weede. 1990. "Cross-National Variation in Political Violence: A

Rational-Action Approach." Journal of Conflict Resolution 34: 624-51.

Neuhauser, Kevin. 1989. "The Radicalization of the Brazilian Catholic Church." American

Sociological Review 54: 233-44.

Nyden, Philip W. 1985. "Democratizing Organizations: A Case Study of a Union Reform

Movement." American Journal of Sociology 90: 1179-1203.

Oberschall, Anthony. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. New York: Prentice-Hall.

48 Mobilization

. 1993. Social Movements: Ideologies, Interests, and Identities. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction.

Paris, Peter J. 1991. Black Religious Leaders: Conflict in Unity. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY:Westminster/John Knox Press.

Parsa, Misagh. 1989. Social Origins of the Iranian Revolution. New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniversity Press.

Pasca, T.M. 1984. "A Wafer the Vatican Can't Swallow." The Nation 238(June 2):657, 672-75. . 1985. "The Vatican Flops in Latin America." The Nation 240(January 26): 76-79.

Peeks, Edward. 1971. The Long Struggle for Black Power. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Peerman, Dean. 1988. "The Silencing of Bishop Casaldaliga." Christian Century 105(October 26):

939-940.Pefla, Milagros. 1995. Theologies of Liberation in Peru. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University

Press.Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1981. Power in Organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.

Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard Cloward. 1979. Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed,

How They Fail. New York: Vintage Books.Powdermaker, Hortense. 1943. "The Channeling of Negro Aggression by the Cultural Process."

American Journal of Sociology 48: 750-58.Ratzinger, Joseph, and Alberto Bovone. [1984] 1990. "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the

' Theology of Liberation."' Pp. 393-414 in Liberation Theology: A Documentary History,

Alfred T. Hennely, ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. . [1986] 1990. "Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation." Pp. 461-497 in

Liberation Theology: A Documentary History, Alfred T. Hennely, ed. Maryknoll, NY:

Orbis Books.Reed, Adolph L., Jr. 1986. "Mythology of the Church in Contemporary Afro-American Politics."

Pp. 41-60 in The Jesse Jackson Phenomenon: The Crisis of Purpose in Afro-American

Politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Richardson, Harry V. 1947. Dark Glory: A Picture of the Church among Negroes in the Rural

South. New York: Friendship Press.Rothschild-Whitt, Joyce. 1976. "Conditions Facilitating Participatory-Democratic Organizations."

Sociological Inquiry 46: 75-86.Rudwick, Elliott, and August Meier. 1972. "Organizational Structure and Goal Succession: A

Comparative Analysis of the NAACP and CORE, 1964-1968." Social Science Quarterly

51: 9-25.Sarkisyanz, E. 1965. Buddhist Backgrounds of the Burmese Revolution. The Hague, The

Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Sawyer, Mary R. 1994. Black Ecumenism: Implementing the Demands of Justice. Valley Forge,

PA: Trinity Press International.Segundo, Juan Luis. [1983] 1990. "Two Theologies of Liberation." Pp. 353-66 in Liberation


. 1985. Theology and the Church: A Response to Cardinal Ratzinger and A Warning to

the Whole Church. Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press.

Sigmund, Paul E. 1990. Liberation Theology at the Crossroads: Democracy or Revolution? New

York: Oxford University Press.

Silverstein, Josef. 1977. Burma: Military Rule and the Politics of Stagnation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.Smith, Christian Stephen. 1991. The Emergence of Liberation Theology: Radical Religion and

Social Movement Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

. 1996. "Correcting a Curious Neglect, or Bringing Religion Back In." Pp. 1-25 inDisruptive Religion: The Force of Faith in Social Movement Activism, Christian Smith,

ed. New York: Routledge.Smith, Donald Eugene. 1965. Religion and Politics in Burma. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.


49

Smith, Martin. 1991. Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity. London, England: ZedBooks.

Spiro, Melford E. 1982. Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes.2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University- of California Press.

Steinberg, David 1. 1990. The Future of Burma: Crisis and Choice in Myanmar. Lanham, MD:University Press of America.

Takayama, K. Peter. 1974. "Administrative Structures and Political Processes in ProtestantDenominations." Publius 4: 5-37.

. 1975. "Formal Polity and Change of Structure: Denominational Analysis." SociologicalAnalysis 36: 17-28.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, Clarence. 1994. The Black Churches of Brooklyn. New York: Columbia University Press.Taylor, Robert H. 1987. The State in Burma. London, England: C. Hurst.

Than Tun. 1988. Essays on the History and Buddhism of Burma. Edited by P. Strachan. WhitingBay, Scotland: Kiscadale Publications.

Tilly, Charles. 1978. Front Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Tilly, Charles, Louise Tilly, and Richard Tilly. 1975. The Rebellious Century, 1830-1930.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Tin Mating Maung Than. 1988. "The Sangha and Sasana in Socialist Burma." Sojourn: Social

Issues in Southeast Asia 3: 26-61. . 1993. "Sangha Reforms and Renewal of Sasana in Myanmar." Pp. 6-63 in Buddhist

Trends in Southeast Asia, T. Ling, ed. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Tushman, Michael L. [19771 1983. "A Political Approach to Organizations: A Review and

Rationale." Pp. 393-407 in Organizational Influence Processes, Robert W. Allen andLyman W. Porter, eds. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Wilmore, Gayraud S. 1983. Black Religion and Black Radicalism. 2d ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Wood, James R. 1981. Leadership in Voluntary Organizations: The Controversy over Social Action

in Protestant Churches. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Woodson, Carter G. 1921. The History of the Negro Church. Washington, DC: The Associated

Publishers.Woodward, Mark R. 1988. "When One Wheel Stops: Theravada Buddhism and the British Raj in

Upper Burma." Crossroads: An InterdisciplinaryJournal of Southeast Asian Studies 4:57-

90.Yarnold, Barbara M., ed. 1991. The Role of Religious Organizations in Social Movements. New

York: Praeger.

Zald, Mayer N., ed. 1970. Power in Organizations. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

. 1990. "Conclusion: The Analogy of Organizations and Nation-States." Pp. 394-99 inOrganizations and Nation States, Robert L. Kahn and Mayer N. Zald, eds.. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Zald, Mayer N., and Roberta Ash. 1966. "Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and

Change." Social Forces 44: 327-41.,Zald, Mayer N., and Michael A. Berger. 1978. "Social Movements in Organizations: Coup d'Etat,

Bureaucratic Insurgency, and Mass Movements." American Journal of Sociology 83: 823-

861.Zald, Mayer N., and John D. McCarthy. 1987. "Religious Groups as Crucibles of Social

Movements." Pp. 67-95 in Zald and McCarthy, Social Movements in an Organizational

Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Yearbook of American Churches, Edition for 1955. 1954. New York: National Council of the

Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

Zamfmih-i Khabar-Nkmih (Supplement to the Newsletter). 1977-1978. Vols. 1-22. Tehran, Iran:

Jibhih-i Milli-i Iran.

ORGANIZATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT ...The importance of preexisting organizations for...

Documents

Transcript of ORGANIZATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT ...The importance of preexisting organizations for...